Thursday, January 31, 2008

Obama gives Rezko story the life it has

It was 15 months ago that the Tribune broke the story about the unusual but evidently quite legal real estate deal between U.S. Sen. Barack Obama and controversial businessman Tony Rezko.

The deal, involving the purchase of adjoining properties in Hyde Park, began in mid-2005. Rezko was indicted in October of the following year on federal charges that he was part of a state-government kickback scheme.

Obama expressed contrition and regret in the early going: Doing the deal with the radioactive Rezko was “stupid” and “boneheaded,” he told the Tribune editorial board in a wide-ranging interview in December 2006.

Rezko, a generous contributor to Obama’s campaigns, “no doubt believed that by buying the piece of property next to me that he would, if not be doing me a favor, it would help strengthen our relationship,” Obama said. But there was no apparent payback, no scam, no skim.

And no more to the story.

Pesky reporters kept digging around, as well they should have given that Obama announced in February 2007 that he was running for president and waving the banner of political reform.

Local news organizations began exploring all the intricacies of Obama’s long-term relationship with the shady moneyman and putting to the test Obama’s early claim, “[Rezko] never asked me for anything. I’ve never done any favors for him.”

Nothing significant has surfaced to contradict the essence of that claim or prove Obama acted unethically. But journalists are still looking because they’re not satisfied that they have the full story.

And that’s Obama’s fault. At some point early in his campaign for the White House, he apparently decided he’d said all he wanted to say and all there was to say about his dealings with Rezko. He would not grant follow-up interviews on the subject to investigative reporters, and his staff provided written and often inadequate responses to written questions.

Maybe he thought the questions were irritating—picky, repetitive, dripping with insinuations. Maybe he thought there was so little to this would-be scandal that reporters would forget about it and move on to another politician’s curious entanglements. Or maybe ....

Well, it sure looked like he was hiding something.

This was bonehead deluxe. Megabonehead. Boneheadissimo.

Rezko’s looming trial date (it’s next month) was bound to exhume any part of the story that had died. The national media was inevitably going to want to take a crack at the tale that places Obama squarely in the skeezy milieu of Illinois politics.

And if he became a top contender, his rivals were bound to look for ways to play the Rezko card and throw him off for at least a few news cycles.

Spring of last year would have been the time for Obama and his advisers to write “The Audacity of Tony,” a meticulous, utterly honest, month-by-month, day-by-day account of all his dealings with Rezko since 1990.

Then to scrub all his political accounts of any donations somehow attributable to Rezko (instead of doing this by conspicuous degrees).

And, finally, to sit with interested reporters until he’d addressed every last question they might still have about the legal work he did for non-profits who worked with Rezko and the granular details of the real estate deal.

His failure to have done this for 15 months doesn’t speak to a guilty conscience so much as it speaks to dubious crisis-management skills.

Speaking for myself, I don’t expect a perfect president, just one who’s wholly candid after he or she makes a mistake.

Another big question: Is that really so much to ask?MORE:

Tony Rezko, the early warnings --Excerpts from just a few of the bigger stories about Tony Rezko prior to the June, 2005 real estate transaction between Barack Obama and Tony Rezko.

When Sen. Barack Obama decided to buy a stately $1.65 million home last year on Chicago's South Side, Antoin "Tony" Rezko and his wife wasted no time. The same day the Obamas closed on the house, the Rezkos closed on the purchase of the adjoining vacant lot, which once was the estate's lush side yard.

In normal circumstances, the two real estate transactions probably wouldn't have raised an eyebrow. There is, after all, nothing illegal or untoward about an aggressive developer buying hot property next door to a rising political star.

But these are not normal times for either Obama or Rezko, two longtime friends whose fortunes have taken sharp turns in opposite directions.

Illinois' junior U.S. senator has become a political star, riding a surge of popularity that has made him a top potential candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

Rezko, meanwhile, has achieved notoriety of a different sort. In October, he pleaded not guilty to federal charges involving pay-to-play allegations that surround Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's administration.

Now the hows and whys of a real estate deal, and a train of subsequent transactions, are raising questions about the relationship between the two men, as Obama struggles to distance himself from Rezko, and Rezko strives to stay out of prison.

Over the last 16 months, as they jointly worked to improve their side-by-side properties, the two men entered an ongoing series of personal financial arrangements. Because Rezko was widely reported to be under federal grand jury scrutiny, Obama said he was careful to ensure their transactions were ethical and proper.

"My working assumption was that as long as I operated in an open, up-front fashion, and all the T's were crossed and I's were dotted, that it wouldn't be an issue," Obama said. "If it was a neighbor I didn't know at all, would I have behaved any differently? I felt like the answer was no."

Obama added: "Tony has been a supporter of mine since my first race for state Senate."

And he said: "I haven't been involved with him in any legislative work whatsoever or any government activities of any sort."

For years, it's been Rezko's practice to befriend up-and-coming political figures, from Blagojevich to the godson of former County Board President John Stroger. Rezko often weaves those political friendships into business ventures.

Rezko first reached out to Obama in about 1990 when the future senator made headlines as the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. Rezko and two real estate partners called out of the blue to offer a job building inner-city homes.

"I said no, but I remained friendly with all three of them," Obama said. "All three of them remained great contributors of mine."

Over the years Rezko and Obama shared lunch "once or twice a year, although that's just an estimate," the senator said. As couples, the Rezkos and Obamas dined perhaps "two to four times ... in the time that I've known him."

One of Illinois' most prominent local Democratic fundraisers, Rezko and his companies donated at least $8,000 to Obama's state Senate campaigns and $11,500 to Obama's federal fund. (Obama has said he will divest those federal donations.) Rezko also hosted a 2003 event to boost Obama's campaign fund.

Obama and his wife were already flush with success when they went house hunting last year. Their combined income--bolstered by payments for his best-selling autobiography and advances for future books--topped $1.67 million. His wife, Michelle, had recently been promoted to a $316,962-a-year position as vice president at the University of Chicago Hospitals.

House has 4 fireplaces

They were drawn to a 96-year-old Georgian revival home that has four fireplaces, glass-door bookcases fashioned from Honduran mahogany, and a 1,000-bottle wine cellar, according to real estate listings and an interview. The house and the adjoining yard--which is surveyed as a separate lot--are rimmed by 12-foot-tall evergreens.

In the past, the two lots had been sold as a single estate. But in 2005, the owners listed the two parcels for sale separately.

Obama said his family's real estate broker brought the house to his wife's attention. He said he discussed the house with Rezko but isn't sure how Rezko began pursuing the adjacent lot. But Obama raised the possibility that he was the first to bring the lot to Rezko's attention.

"I don't recall exactly what our conversations were or where I first learned, and I am not clear what the circumstances were where he made a decision that he was interested in the property," Obama said.

"I may have mentioned to him the name of [a developer and] he may at that point have contacted that person. I'm not clear about that," Obama said.

The neighborhood wasn't new to Rezko, whose companies had purchased numerous South Side properties.

Obama said he and Rezko had no prior agreement about Rezko's plans for the garden parcel.

"My understanding was that he was going to develop it," Obama said.

It was "already a stretch" to buy the house, Obama said, so the vacant lot was not affordable for his family.

The Obamas bought the house in June 2005 for $1.65 million--some $300,000 less than the asking price--and secured a $1.32 million mortgage from Northern Trust.

Rezko's wife, Rita, bought the adjoining lot the same day, paying the full $625,000 asking price with the help of a $500,000 mortgage from Mutual Bank of Harvey. The Rezkos declined to comment for this article.

The Obamas wanted a fence between the parcels. They hired an attorney and architects within a month of their purchase to seek guidance about the fence from the Commission on Chicago Landmarks.

Michelle Obama had served on the commission from 1998 to March 2005, and she contacted the staff about the fence. On July 15, 2005, a city landmarks deputy commissioner, Brian Goeken, sent a long e-mail to Michelle Obama saying he had gone out one evening to look at the house. He listed suggestions for obtaining a permit for the fence.

Goeken declined to comment for this article.

Over the next six months, the Obamas' architect had several conversations with city officials about whether to relocate portions of the existing fence or build a new, compatible one.

Architect Wil Taubert said in an interview that he dealt only with the Obamas.

"I knew somebody owned the corner but I never asked who it was," Taubert said.

Though the Obamas laid the groundwork, Rezko agreed to build and pay for the $14,000 fence that runs along their property line.

Fence required by city

Obama said Rezko paid for the fence because a city ordinance compelled Rezko to fence the line between his vacant lot and their house. He added that both men agreed there were broader reasons for a fence.

"I had had a conversation with him in which I indicated that it probably was important for us to have a separation of the properties because the property was all one piece, it wasn't really demarcated, and I did think that it was important for there not to be any perception whatsoever that somehow I was having any use of their property," Obama said.

"Partly because Michelle had already been on Landmarks, partly because we're well-known neighbors ... I felt it was important to make sure that all the T's were crossed and I's were dotted in terms of compliance with landmarks," he said. "I thought it would be embarrassing if somehow whatever fence was erected didn't comply."

Obama said he funded the architectural and legal work because "if somebody walked by, they would assume that it was on my property and so it was important from my perspective that it be done right."

Obama said he didn't know exactly how much he spent on the architectural, landscaping and legal work that enabled Rezko to acquire a fence permit in January 2006.

"My suspicion is that it would probably be a couple of thousand dollars. On the architectural side it might be more," he said. "I think legal fees were a couple thousand."

To preserve the aesthetic balance, Obama also wanted to put some space between his house and the proposed fence, so he personally asked Tony Rezko if they would sell a portion of their lot without restricting their ability to build in the future.

"I told them if you can spare another 5 or 10 feet, I'd be happy to purchase it from you," Obama said. "They came back and said they could sell us up to 10 feet."

Using a standard formula, Obama's appraiser estimated the 1,500-square-foot portion at a market value of $40,500.

But Obama felt it would be fair to pay the Rezkos $104,500, or a sixth of their original $625,000 purchase price, because he was acquiring a sixth of their land. The sale closed in January 2006.

That month, the fabricator hired by Rezko began building the fence, which sits immediately on top of the property line. Five months later, in May, Advance Welding & Construction sent one of Rezko's companies a $14,300 invoice that stated, "All work is completed."

Obama said he and his family have never used the Rezko yard--even for a brief picnic or Frisbee game. But Obama said he pays his landscaper to mow Rezko's 7,500-square-foot yard.

A person can't enter the Rezko lot from the street--but Obama's groundskeeper gets in through the gate that opens from Obama's lot.

Service mows both lawns

"Right now my landscaper who comes and does all my work, I have asked him to go ahead and mow the lawn on the other side," Obama said.

"My intention was to have the landscaper figure out some pro-rata cost for that mowing and send that bill to Rezko," Obama said. "I just haven't had time to do it."

The lawn-mowing bill that he plans to send Rezko "can't be more than three or four hundred, a thousand dollars," Obama added.

The bill for the new fence has yet to be paid, according to Advance President Raymond Oshana and Michael Sreenan, an attorney who represented the Rezkos in transactions pertaining to the fence and garden lot.

That may be because Tony Rezko is embroiled in debt and business difficulties as well as legal trouble. The federal charges against Rezko include allegations that he defrauded a lender to keep one business venture afloat.

But the garden lot may yet be developed.

Sreenan and a Rezko company accountant in October formed a corporation that Sreenan said will try to purchase the lot from Rita Rezko and build there.

While no sale has taken place, "We're hoping to move ahead on development," Sreenan said.

It was premature to discuss details, Sreenan said, but one thing was sure about this potential venture: "It will be entirely separate from Mr. Rezko."

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Obama's hazy memories as to how Rezko came to buy the empty lot, the purchase of which was absolutely essential in order for Obama to be able to buy his own home, are what arouse my suspicions.
Several stories report that Obama said he may have called Rezko for "advice" (always quoted, though I can't find the original source) about the property. Even in the story above,
Obama suggests that he initiated the conversation that led to the Rezko's involvement. He then goes on to acknowledge that Rezko “no doubt believed that by buying the piece of property next to me that he would, if not be doing me a favor, it would help strengthen our relationship.”
Even if Obama didn't explicitly suggest that he'd be beholden to Rezko if he stepped in to help him out with his real estate deal, the above quote indicates that he was well aware that Rezko was going to infer this. Rezko's act of "relationship strengthening" goes way beyond the normal sort of favors associated with friendships. This isn't akin to buying Obama lunch or picking him up from the airport.
Even if Obama didn't initiate the real estate deal (and his own comments seem to indicate otherwise), I have a hard time imagining any possible "clean" explanation he can provide as to why he allowed it to take place. (Simply calling it "boneheaded" is not an explanation.)
You want Obama to be forthcoming (as do I), but what can he possibly say to convince us that not only has he never done any favors for Rezko in return for Rezko's removing the impediment to Obama's home purchase, but he never intended to do any favors for him in the future?
Would you be believe him if he said he was simply leading Rezko on?

ZORN REPLY -- IT was also reported at the same time that there was another offer for the vacant lot. So it's not yet been proven that Obama NEEDED Rezko to be the purchaser of the lot, though it may have been that he WANTED Rezko to purchase it because he trusted Rezko or had some understanding that Rezko would either not build on it or build modestly on it.
I'd like to know just how it went down, yes. But I can imagine Obama calling Rezko for a more general purpose -- finding someone trustworthy to buy that lot; that Rezko, sniffing multiple opportunities, said, "Hey, I'll buy it (through my wife)!" And Obama thinking to himself, well, there's nothing illegal about THAT. And there isn't. Rezko may have seen a straight-up financial advantage to owning a piece of land next to such a prominent political figure. And on the scale of favors, if that's the best word for this transaction, it pales next to the multi-million favors that donors and supporters of ALL sorts do for many high profile political candidates.
Even beyond that, you don't have the return favor that turns the transaction unseemly.

Last Sunday Obama claimed that both the Chicago and national press had covered his Rezko connection in detail... Wrong. It's only just beginning.
He said that he had answered every question there was... Of course he hasn't. He and his organization have consistently blocked inquiries into fundraising details. And the more he obfuscates, the longer the questions linger and new ones are raised.
Obama's relationship with Rezko is very long, and both personal and financial. Furthermore, there is much more to this than the deal on his mansion. Very much more. He tries to suggest otherwise, but the record is there.
It seems that his supporters are intentionally focusing on the mansion in order to divert attention from the more serious issues.
This is just beginning to get real national attention, and it won't go away.

ZORN REPLY -- You're just clearing your throat and injecting innuendo into this conversation, YVote. What specific questions or facts do you have that you want to bring to the table? "Very much more..." sounds like a junior high cafeteria taunt: "I know something about you-u-u!" What ARE you talking about?

You wrote that the Rezko mess has show that Obama has "dubious crisis-management skills".
Isn't that the number one skill a president should have?
And Obama seems to lack it.
Apparently Obama refuses to release the actual contracts & other paperwork between he & Rezko.
We all know that they will come out at some time. That he keeps them secret makes it look even worse.

We're coming out of seven years of dubious
crisis-management skills, can we afford four more of them?

ZORN REPLY -- Yes, and before that we finished eight years of very dubious crisis management skills. Compared to whom is the question of the day, and the Clintons' record in this regard is not comforting.

A sleazy deal from another sleazy fellow. It is nice to be know so many friends that publish books, own land next to you, and want to give you money because you are "honest". It hurts most people most when they get exposed.

Stupid, naive or crooked. If you didn't know the names, but just read the circumstances, you would choose one (or more) of these attributes. I don't think Obama is stupid, but the alternatives are not very attractive for a presidential candidate.
To paraphrase Potter of "Wonderful Life"...if this yokel were an ordinary alderman/governor, you'd say he's doing pretty well for himself. But.....

Considering the state of the nation - and the world - today, I can't see the significance of this at all. Maybe - heaven forbid - it's ACTUALLY NOT AN ISSUE - as Obama is indicating. Good Lord. I have a son in Iraq and I wish journalists would focus on more relevant issues. If it is necessary to dig, I'm certain there's plenty of equally "compelling" information about every, single candidate who ever ran for public office. Please stop trying to make something of nothing. It's tedious. For those who only read headlines and not the actual story, journalists are actually providing a biased and inaccurate quality of information. I'm not sure we should operate on the assumption that a well-read electorate is what we're dealing with. That's why your job is especially important. I wish more journalists would consider that.

The increasing volume in the demand for answers is certainly attributable to Obama's own reticence to get ahead of this story. But it seems that Obama did this way for a rather practical and obvious reason: the fawning adulation of local, and now Big Media, have given Senator Obama the mistaken impression that his actions will never be subject to the kind of scrutiny that others in public life go through.
Senator Clinton has endured years of taxpayer-funded and media-driven scrutiny. But although there's no "there" there, the criticisms continue. Senator McCain, oddly, has gotten a pass thus far in the scandal department - even though he was the subject of a Senate ethics probe concerning his membership as one of the "Keating Five." See, http://www.slate.com/id/1004633
The continued enabling of Senator Obama by you and most others in the mainstream media have turned what could have been a tiny stream into what may be a raging whitewater rapids (pardon the pun).
Treating the good Senator as a human being capable of mistakes (and, yes, even scandal) would be good for Senator Obama, and good for America.

You state that Barack's failure to answer all questions about the Rezko deal in the past 15 months "doesn’t speak to a guilty conscience so much as it speaks to dubious crisis-management skills."
Oh come on!
You would not give any other local politician (and certainly not any Republican) the benefit of the doubt on this. Have you entertained even the remote possibility that Barack is not speaking about this because the Rezko deal is evidence of his corruption?
In any event, I suspect that this story will die a natural death (whithout anything being fully answered) when Hillary clinches the nomination. It could be resurrected in the fall if Barack is named as the VP candidate....but then it won't have any legs, because the questions will be coming from Republicans instead of Hillary.

It strikes me as odd that in the current political climate, Obama has flatly refused to be as forthright as possible in order to suffocate this issue.
I find the comparisons to JFK shallow, but somewhat intruiging. Most notably, JFK lived during a political period in which the mews media had more restricted access to a pol's historical dealings, be them business or personal (i.e. Marilyn Monroe, etc.).
For Obama to claim naivete or stupidity just doesn't cut it today.

This is not a "crisis" because the media wants it to be. You can't find anything because there isn't anything to find. Now you complain because it wasn't handled the way YOU wanted it to be. Get over yourself please.

ZORN REPLY -- Hey, I've been pretty quiet on the Rezko matter, but as it's playing out I see Obama handling it poorly. I'm not complaining. I'm just saying. You think he's handled it well?

It was just an innocent real estate deal. And aldermen on the zoning board just happen to get political donations from the people who want zoning changes. It's all perfectly legal and just a coincidence. Yeah, I should be so lucky.

ZORN REPLY -- From what's been reported so far, we're told that the Obama's bid was the highest bid on the house to that date, and that the house had been on the market for a while; that the house and the adjacent lot had already been separated by the owner prior to the Rezkos coming onto the scene. It's been reported that there was also another bid for the vacant lot, and that bid was close to or at list price. If you have other facts or contrary facts, let's hear them!

The national media has not paid any attention to this matter or it would be on the cover of every newspaper, magazine, etc..
The reason that we as a country should be made aware of this story is because we are electing someone for President .
I would hate for someone like you to be the reason that we would get wrong information or didn't do your job as the media did in the Iraq war, Halliburton, the lies that we have been constantly told from Bush etc.
Never mind that in one story Obama said he only knew him from the law firm and then in another story he has had this relationship for over 17 years and don't forget that Obama hasn't given all of his contributions to charity as he stated...
Obama seems to contradict himself and maybe this is why we as a country should know this story!

ZORN REPLY -- WHere you and I probably agree is that Obama needs to work a lot harder to clear the air/explain things/ reconcile his statements. Not doing so turns a small story into a big one.

The focus should not be on how much Obama paid for the strip of land. The focus should be on how much the remaining piece is worth. Price was about $625,000 and Obama paid 1/6 of that. He implies that the remaing peice is worth about $500,000.
If you bought a shirt for $25 and cut off a sleeve and sold the sleeve for $5, would the shirt now be worth $20. I don't believe it would.
If someone else had bought that property they may not have wanted to "divide it" like that. It changes the possible use of the remaing portion. This still has an aroma to it because it DOES stink.

ZORN REPLY -- The strip was appraised at far less than Obama paid for it (which speaks to things at once, one that he was striving to be above board and two that he had an inkling this entire transaction would receive scrutiny down the line). Your shirt analogy is very weak. A shirt without a sleeve is basically worthless; a smaller lot is simply a smaller lot...I'd trust the appraiser over your frantic suppositions. All due respect and all.
Take politics out of it. A sold B product C and B paid more than market value for it. How does this attach a "stink" to B, on its face?

This whole Rezko/Obama thing was destined to be blown up to huge proportions because of Obama running for the Big Seat. However, I think the Rezko/Blago story will be the much more interesting one to follow through this whole ordeal. There is no doubt that Rezko had waaaaaay closer ties to Blago than any other of the myriad of politicians that he has contributed to. He (allegedly) influenced staff decisions by our state's governor in order to pave the way for the benefit of himself and others, and I think this will end up being the juicy story when all is said and done.

My question is: Why is Obama just now getting rid of the campaign contributions linked to Rezko? Shouldn't that have been done at the same time the "stupid and boneheaded" comment was made? "I'm sorry I got involved with you" rings hollow when accompanied by "I'll be glad to keep your money."

Obama could not afford the house and lot. The owner would not split the house and lot,they had to be sold together. Rezko stepped up and made the purchase of the house by Obama possible. Ever had any of your friends do you a "Favor" like this? I think if Rezko remains in jail until his trial he might decide to tell his side of the story, should be interesting.

ZORN REPLY -- Your angle depends on the lot being of no or significantly lesser value to the Rezkos than the price they paid for it AND there being no other offers for the lot that could have coordinated wth the Obama purchase. From what I've read so far, both premises are false.
What else you got?

Jeez, I wish I could get exercised about this story, and be a concerned citizen, but there just does not seem to be enough there to make a federal case out of. Obama answered every question in my mind to my satisfaction, and turned over the Rezko political donations to charity. So I am not too keen on my favorite candidate, Senator Clinton, even bringing it up.

The troubling aspect here that Obama got the house for $325,000 less than the asking price, while Rezko paid full asking price for the adjacent lot, both of which were being sold by the same owner. Isn't that an obvious subsidy by Rezko, since his full price for the lot enabled Obama to pay far less for the house? The seller only cares about the price for the total, and is indifferent to the portion paid by Rezko vs. Obama. It may not be something that could be proved in criminal court, but anyone in real estate could tell you that by doing that, Rezko gave Obama a huge gift.

ZORN REPLY -- I will repeat what's been reported elsewhere. The sellers split the lot and the house before the Obama's got interested in the house. The house wasn't selling at the price they were asking and the Obama's bid was the highest of two bids. The Rezko's bid at list price was reportedly one of two bid at or near list price. There's no evidence that the separate agents on those properties colluded with the Rezkos and the Obamas; that there were any higher bids or that anything was unethical or even stinky about the deal from what we know. Perhaps there's more to know. I'm with you if you have questions. But I'm not with you when you persist in misrepresenting the transaction.

We have real and serious problems in this country and you want to talk about this Eric? It is journalists like you and so many others who enjoy a good "scandal" that keep voters from actually following the real issues that matter.

All this does is make me want to look back into all that Whitewater Scandal brouhaha (I didn't pay much attention to politics back when I was working 16-hour days) and compare notes.

I've got a choice between Democrat A and Democrat B, here, really. Both have a long enough political tenure to have had shady political hangers on, along the way.

Seems pretty irrelevant to me, given the fact that the legal authorities don't seem to be remotely interested in pursuing either set of sleazy innuendos. I guess it beats the race/gender debate.

Chicago Tonight had campaign mouthpieces from Clinton and Obama run through the issues last night. I thought I'd finally hear something about their differences, but they only gave it about five minutes and then ended with a snarky comment about how difficult it is to stick to the issues. Oh, is it? Maybe if you gave them another ten minutes they could delve a little deeper than:

"Issue X?"
"Position Y."
"Me too."

That just leads us back to rating superficial qualities. Speaking of which, I guess you're dedicated to the superficial argument, eh, Zorn? You like to say Obama has reams of position papers and all, but when it comes to discussing the actual issues and the candidates' various plans, you've been pretty mum. Are you jaded? Am I being way too cerebral, here, in expecting there to be more to this election than the candidates' gender, race, height, shoe size, etc.?

Have you been to Hyde Park? Do you know the area where Obama lives? No legality issues- - of course not. This has nothing to do with transparent benefit but the result of over 17 years of political friendship that somewhere down the line will be repaid. It seems that the good Senator like most of the politicians of Chicago is not immune from the politics he so wants to deny.

ZORN REPLY -- So your gripe is that even though Obama hasn't paid Rezko back with a favor, he certainly will.
And justhow is this different from the candidates who accept big bucks from all kinds of industry and interest lobbying groups? Are those favors that " somewhere down the line will be repaid" as well?

Political opponents will make big medicine out of the Obama, Rezko relationship. Hillary made the mistake of not answering every stupid question about a failed real estate deal and we spent about thirty million dollars and defamed hundreds of people. The Obamas should respond to every question no matter how silly or trivial to keep their enemies from getting any deadly slogans or sound bites that the compliant media can repeat.

I believe lobbyists for better or worse are required to declare the contribution, correct? I'm not sure I agree that , in the end, there isn't a difference between lobbyists and individuals who are looking for favors that problably will personally benefit. I think there is a difference and an important one.

Overall, I think that your commentary regarding this issue has been fair, my only bone of contention is this, you cannot take one singular incident or dealing and draw the conclusions from it that you seem to have come to, if we were to use your standard I can assure you that there would be a dearth of candidates who would be fit to be president of these United States.

Your reply to Bill Ott that it's just a smaller lot is wrong.
When a lot is made smaller, all sorts of changes as to what can be built happen.
The zoning may change & the allowable floor area ration certainly decreases.

And that will cause the land's value to decrease, sometimes massively.
And if that's the case, then it was an illegal contribution to Obama.

Now maybe Obama didn't understand that, but I will guarantee this, Rezko did!
He understood it very well & I would hate to know what Rezko might have "requested, meaning demanded" out of Obama.
And then it comes down to, would Obama have given in to it?
Past history of reform pols in Chicago doesn't give me a good feeling there.

And to bob: The 5000 block of Greenwood is Kenwood, not Hyde Park. You should go there & see for yourself, huge lots, huge mansions, unusual for Chicago.

ZORN REPLY -- I don't think you can assume either way how much a lot loses in value when you slice 17 percent off it. I'm sure it depends on zoning, which 17 percent it is and so on. This is what appraisers do, and you can offer hostile speculations all you want, but this posting of yours is conjecture on top of conjecture, nothing more.

Perhaps I've lived in Chicago too long. Perhaps I've come to accept the nature of Chicago politics - the quid pro quos, the "chinamen," the not-quite-a-joke motto of "ubi est meum" ("where's mine?") - but I don't see much here. In fact, I see very little here compared to the outright bribes and corruption that marks so much of Chicago and Cook County politics.

The facts of the transaction are public record. There's no allegation of wrongdoing. There's no new facts, no new allegations to suggest that there's any need for further explanations. (And contrary to the crude allegations made by Kass's column yesterday, I doubt very much if Reczko is going to get any favors from any Dem politico anytime soon.) What more can Obama say that doesn't just keep this in the news cycle?

Everyone concedes that if one digs deep enough one finds the same kind of poor judgment in the Clintons' past (one recalls certain presidential pardons, and a set of missing travel records, for example.) So it really isn't a an issue about the varying qualities of judgment of certain elected officials. Every high-level Democrat and Republican alike, no matter how high-minded, has some shady contributor in their closet. We've made it the nature of the game of getting elected in this country (and in this city and state in particular.)

So why must Obama submit to the kind of cross-examination and mea culpa beyond what's already been done? Why is this such an issue when there are many more stories of true corruption that deserve the journalistic resources that are being poured into this story?

I have my own suspicions (the words "swiftboating" and "race" have crossed my mind, but I tell myself I'm just being paranoid)but I'd love to see more than the bloviating, unsubstantiated "hints-n-allegations" I've seen in the columns and reader comments of the Tribune. (Your column excepted, Eric.)

I wrote a DailyKos post about the myths surrounding Rezko and Obama http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/29/171056/015/838/445627
I don't think full disclosure would have helped Obama much; it might have made the story bigger, earlier. I think Obama assumed that the media had vetted the story, found nothing of significance, and dropped it. That was true, until Hillary brought it up. Obama could have handled this better throughout, but it was the kind of terrible judgment similar to, say, voting for the war in Iraq.

Hillary Clinton has far worse ethics concerns relating to earmarks that should become a top issue now that the minor issue of the Rezko deal has been front-page news. Will the media bring up earmarks? Will Obama? That's the key issue.

John Kass, w keeps harping on the fact that Obama paid $300,000 less than the house's asking price. If Kass pays the asking price for every piece of property he ever buys, he must be a very popular fellow among real estate sellers' agents. As well as at poker games.

The Rezko problem exists because Obama is running on a platform that he represents a new style of politics that sheds the baggage attached to the old ways. Obama tries to paint himself as an outsider and someone who is above the dirt.
But the Rezko problem is evidence that when presented with "too good of a deal" and a chance to make a killing, Obama was no different than the rest of the politicians and took the bait. Rezko is and was linked to other elected officials and problems. Old Cook County style politics.
This is not the only evidence of poor decision making by Obama. He backs Todd Stroger who is and was as far from "new" politics as is possible. Obama supported a person who is killing taxpayers of this County with a lack of leadership and lack of fiscal responsibility. Now, either Obama has poor judgment or was looking to bank some political favors. Either way it is not positive. He has also backed other poor candidates when there was no need to do so or other more qualified candidates were possible choices.
Obama's choices demonstrate that like other politicians, when he could benefit from deals he made choices that benefited him . He could have said no on the Rezko deal and smelled the problem. He could have said no to Stroger. He chose not to and the public is right to ask why.
This does not mean Obama is worse than the other candidates, but it also shows he is no saint when it comes to making political decisions.
What has he done to clean up his own local democratic organization? Our state and county are in a fiscal mess because of his party's leaders. How has he worked to clean up his own backyard? He does not keep the greatest company and has been silent on the lack of leadership and corruption. He had a chance to support change here in our county and he failed to do so. How does that reflect on his word?
And how does Kennedy present a picture of change? How may people have the political power base offered by the Kennedy clan? Just because a person clothes himself in liberal and democratic clothing does not mean he is free from chicanery. Kennedy brings more old style politics to the campaign.
That is why Rezko does not go away. It illustrates that the candidate for change may not be that much different than the rest. Will it be new politics or simply some new faces. What does his history of decision making tell us???

just one question, the premise is simple, obama has given back the "campaign donations tied to rezko" to charities....that is all fine and dandy... but really, that is only PART of the rezko-obama picture regarding financial transactions obama benefitted from..... and again, really, if obama was true to his projected thought, the thought being he severed all ties.... why is he keeping the personal things (i.e. his house, the parcel of real estate he bought from rezko, etc.) he received from rezko.... and please donot say it is his home, or he paid for it.... no matter, i say, either get rid of ALL ties no matter the cost, or obama should stand up and say, i am only doing the campaingn ties, but keeping to my greedy little self the personal things i benefit from and will continue to do it, and that is the way i am....
now the question is....do you have the courage to confront him and ask him directly why he does not terminate ALL ties? if so, when and if not, why not
thank you

ZORN REPLY-- Many reporters have been trying to get an audience with him on this story. He's not going along.

Why no mention in the press that Rezko's indictment came down on October 11, 2006, less than a month before the election that pitted Blagojevich against Judy Barr Topinka in a tight race? The press heavily reported this story which linked Rezko to Blago.
There are very serious allegations that the Bush Justice Department had a policy of handing down politcally-tied indictments just before elections in an attempt to influence them in other jurisdictions.
Unless Patrick Fitzgerald can adequately explain why he indicted Rezko when he did (i.e., just before an election) I will remain very skeptical.
Why not ask Fitgerald to explain himself. Maybe a statue of limitation was about to run or there's some other explanation, but it sure looks politcal to me.
Why ignore this angle of the story?

"ZORN REPLY -- You're just clearing your throat and injecting innuendo into this conversation, YVote. What specific questions or facts do you have that you want to bring to the table?"

Specifically I'm referring to Obama's aiding Rezko to get funding for his public housing projects... all of which were shoddy as I understand it.
It may be argued that early on Obama was unaware of Resko's true nature. However, by the time of the famous real estate deal this could not have been the case. And by that time it looked as though Tony and Barack had a very cozy tit-for-tat relationship. That, in turn bespeaks a callous disregard by Obama for his constituency...
Unless one argues (implausibly) that Obama was uniformed or just plain dumb.
And that is much uglier than the Real estate deal which is why I believe that BO's supporters would rather focus on the mansion.

Just a quick question Eric, do you and John Kass argue this point in the newsroom? He seems to think that this is a big deal. I appreciate that the Tribune will print both sides of this argument, but could we maybe have a point/counterpoint between the two of you to try to ferret out what's going on. Also, does the Tribune brass/board believe this is a sacndel or not? Just curious

As someone who is not overly familiar with all the stories, this seemed to make sense to me. The Rezko-Obama connection seems fairly minor when I remember the many Billary scandals. I also think it's interesting that very little attention has been made of Hillary's good friend and FL campaign chair, Alcee Hastings. Now that is one interesting story!

"Dubious crisis-management skills"? I don't think so. He's answered the businees questions, and all that's left are the personal questions.

As he's said, there are things he doesn't remember exactly. Why would he? Barack and Tony are chit-chatting about what's going on in their lives, that topic naturally includes the Obamas looking to buy a house for their young family with Barack's windfall book money, and Tony, being a real estate developer, pays attention. Barack mentions there's a particular developer interested in the lot, probably asks Tony what he knows about the guy (as in, does this guy do good work, or am I likely to have an eyesore next door?) Barack mentions the obvious alternative is to develop the lot himself, but he doesn't have the time, money, interest or expertise so that's out. But, it's Michelle's dream house and he wants to make her happy.

Tony goes home, talks to his wife about this, they see it as an excellent investment opportunity, and decide to put in an offer on the lot - contingent on the house being sold to the Obamas.

Tony knew Barack a long time, and I expect he knew if he talked to Barack about his intention to buy ahead of time, Barack would ask him, as a friend, to not get involved. So, Tony didn't mention it, and his wife put in the actual offer so just in case Barack asked Tony directly if he was involved, Tony could say no.

So now the Obamas have bought their house, Michelle wants it to appear more centered, and it's turned out the Rezkos own the lot. There's nothing Barack can do about that now. So, Barack tries to come up with the most fair price for the strip of lawn so there's no appearance of Tony doing him a favor. Barack's explained that.

What exactly do you want him to say? That he himself didn't care, but Michelle wanted her dream house to be perfect, and kept asking him why he couldn't just buy a little strip of land from the Rezkos? That surely there was some way to buy it without any appearance of a conflict of interest?

What on earth do you expect a loving husband to say? "No, honey, my political career is way more important than making my wife and family happy, so after spending over a million on this house, I'm going to refuse to do this one more thing for you, even though it's really, really important to you and we both know there's really no conflict of interest. You've made it clear you're not happy I went into politics in the first place, and I can't tell you how much I'm looking forward to hearing you complain about this - as one of the many, many sacrifices you've made for my political career - from now into the forseeable future."

hey, thanks for replying....you said many reporters have tried to get an audience about why he keeps the real estate....there is a debate tonight....let hillary know the facts, e mail them to a contact there in her campaign, and let her ask him point blank about his personal ethics....that gets the audience, and hopefully an answer and commitment. i want a president who does what he says --good or bad-- in total, not half baked!!

I'm not sure where the attacks on Eric in a few of these posts for writing about this are coming from. It doesn't seem, from what I can make out, to be such a damning scandal, but Obama should have been more proactive from the start--which is the point EZ's making. It's a basic principle of damage control: full disclosure and full acceptance of any responsibility that is legitimately yours, as soon as you know there's a problem.
And does anybody think for a minute that the story is just going to fade away if EZ, or Kass, or anyone else in town, stops writing about it--even if on its own merits there's no "there" there? Team Clinton is going to use it against him right through the primaries, and that's nothing--*nothing*--to what the Republican smear machine is going to do if Obama wins the nomination.
What depresses me is that the Rezko connection could well derail Obama and leave Blagojevich standing, the Bizarro World of Illinois politics being what it is.

That daily kos piece is very dishonest, and is certainly incomplete (as is archpundit's piece on the scandal).

Zorn actually has a damning blog entry today about how long the Rezko scandal has been brewing. It goes straight to the heart of Obama's assertion (false, as it turns out) that Obama didn't know Rezko was in trouble when he entered into his questionable real estate transaction.

Obama lied in a pretty pitiful attempt at CYA - sorry true believers.

ZORN REPLY -- I'll let you get away with your critique here but only if you promise to follow up soon with specifics. Aside from Obama's dubious assertion that he didn't know Rezko was in big trouble when he did the deal with him, what else is missing from the Kos/Archpundit synopses?

I love these posts where somebody makes up a fictitious scenario that, in their mind, played out just about like so in some public figure's private life. Could we get a little further from the point? Are there any UFO theorists reading today? Let's talk about that as if it makes any sense or has any bearing on the issues.
I don't think Obama will be cozying up to Rezko and doing him any big favors in the near future. He's done everything he can to distance himself, even going so far as to call the real estate deal "boneheaded," which, if you're keeping track, convinced me that he's not an arrogant person.
Would you still call me a racist if I maintained that I do, however, think Obama has a tendency to be "obtuse"?

Here's how I think things happened (based on some educated guess-work):

1. The Obamas find the house of their dreams, which is for sale with or without the adjacent lot.
2. Tony Rezko becomes aware of this, and sees an opportunity for himself.
3. Rezko proposes that he buy the lot, while Obama buys the house.
4. They make concurrent offers. The house offer is several hundred thousand dollars below asking price. The lot offer is full price.
5. The combined offer is acceptable to the seller, but only on condition that the lot closes first. No funny stuff.

Rezko has just effectively given Obama a significant (and difficult to trace or prove) personal contribution. One big one for the favor bank.

6. Rezko then agrees to sell Obama part of the side yard, proof that he didn't buy it for development purposes.
7. Rezko reportedly offers to sell at a very low price. To avoid the appearance of impropriety, Obama demands to pay its appraised value.
8. The appraisal actually proves that Rezko overpaid for the land, further proof that he didn't buy it for development.
9. Then, Rezko pays for a fence around Obama's new side yard, yet further proof that he's in the favor business.
10. Finally, Rezko stiffs the fence contractor, proving only that he's a sleazy.

I like Obama, and I wish this would go away as much as you do, but it won't. Hillary Clinton already played the Rezko card once, when provoked at the MLK-day debate. And the Republican Swift-Boaters will certainly not hesitate, should our guy be the nominee.

I keep asking myself these questions:

1. Why is everyone worried about the appearance of impropriety, if everything is on the up-and-up?
2. What exactly was "boneheaded"? Are we being asked to believe that Obama couldn't see Rezko's angle here?

That strains credulity. The problem, as I see it, is that Obama's persona and campaign are based on the assertion that he's not just another politician. His actions here suggest he is. And he has made his integrity and core principles the basis of his campaign.

The real interesting angle, right now, is whether there is anything funny going on behind the scenes that would put Tony Rezko in an orange jumpsuit a week before Super Tuesday.

Interesting conversation on the topic, suggesting it is anything but ancient history.

ZORN REPLY -- A few notes based on my understanding of the facts from reading Trib and Sun-Times investigative reports:
The sellers separated the house from the lot before the Obamas or Rezkos came along
There was only one other offer on the house all the time it was for sale, and that offer was less than what the Obamas offered.
There's no evidence of an unusual collaboration or coordination of the prices
The strip that Obama purchased was appraised at the lower value. Obama decided, to be on the up and up, he'd buy 1/6th of the lot for 1/6th of the price. I have no idea how lot values vary by size, but I'm guessing there's a lot of zoning etc. that goes into figuring it all out.
There was another offer on the land for the same price Rezko paid or very, very close. I don't know what the law or custom is on who has to put up a fence, if at all, when a vacant lot abuts a residential lot.

You ask " Why is everyone worried about the appearance of impropriety, if everything is on the up-and-up?" And I say this is a good point. It goes to Obama's judgment.
Getting into a deal like that with a guy who was making headlines --- see elsewhere in the blog today for a rundown of stories that appeared in the Tribune BEFORE this deal went down about allegations regarding Rezko. That was on its face really dumb. The fact that he did it all legally (apparently) doesn't remove the bone from the head.

Everyone who becomes President has no prior experience as President, and has to learn from his mistakes. A person who is president and cannot learn from his mistakes, or even realize that he makes them, can cause the country a lot of grief. That is one reason why Obama is qualified to be president and neither George Bush or Hillary Clinton are
are qualified to do the job.

Of course it's conjecture upon conjecture, Obama refuses to be questioned on it.
Your bringing up the Blair Hull & Jack Ryan divorce messes makes Obama look worse in crisis management since he doesn't seemed to have learned from their mistakes.
As for being shocked that Obama may have done favors for Rezko, it's not that! It's that he is stonewalling on the issue & makes himself look very guilty of something.
It may be that the something is very small or it could be very big.
You & the Trib need to get some real estate pros, who have nothing to do with anyone involved here to do an analysis of both properties & the financial & zoning consequences of the transactions.
While the lots on Greenwood are huge, did shrinking the one cause it to become unbuildable would be a start?

What about Michael Sreenan, the former Rezko employee and personal attorney (see fence story) who purchased the lot from Mrs R.? Were his contributions given to charity? Is he clean? The Sun-Times reported 10/10/07 that the lot was listed for $1.5million. That's at least twice, probably 3x the value, so it's guaranteed not to sell. The ABC piece showed it still for sale. Is Sreenan still the owner? With luck the Obama's will have 3.5 years with no construction, courtesy of Rezko and associates. As a bonus they have a space for the secret service in case it's needed. Pretty slick, but first they have to get by the Swiftboaters and that's why this is important.

Call me naive, but as far as I can see there has been no proof uncovered of any illegal, or even unethical, behavior on the part of Senator Obama. So the Rezko thing seems a lot like Whitewater to me: just another in a long line of vicious attempts to tar an opponent with rumors of impropriety, truth be damned.
For that matter, there's not even any evidence that Patrick Fitzgerald had any particular motive in the timing of the indictment whatsoever. So attempting to assassinate Fitzgerald's character in the middle of all this is particularly out of line, it seems to me.
These three incidents (the Rezko story, Whitewater, and skeptic's comment above) are prime examples of the kind of pernicious garbage that Senator Obama is trying to lead us out of.
All it does is turn off the electorate, progressively making it smaller and dumber, which is exactly what the worst elements of both parties want.
Reporters are right to dig, of course, but when you dig down and find nothing, you can't just assume that there was something there that has been removed and concealed.
Zorn has a point when he says Obama should have gotten out in front of this story a long time ago. Just as belief and sincerity are the antidote to spite and apathy, expansive honesty is the antidote to this kind of vicious trash. Obama should tell the whole truth and expose this for the lie that it is. Then he can move on to talking about things that actually make an iota or two of difference. This doesn't.

EZ, I find it a little unfair for you to tell Obama critics to get back on the turnip truck. His campaign is fueled by a rock star-like persona and charm. I know a number of people who genuinely believe that Obama is genuinely different from any other politician; who believe he doesn't play the usual political games; who believe that Obama does not owe anyone favors; who believe that Obama will change the business of politics and "clean up" Washington. They believe that Obama is all about "hope" and "peace" and "unity" and somehow navigated the "cesspool" of Illinois politics (your word to describe Springfield in a recent article) without himself being tainted or stained. Yet now you say that he has engaged in politics as usual, so everyone should just get over it? This is part of the duplicitous game Obama's campaign has played from Day One. He portrays himself as being above the fray while simultaneously engaging in the same messy politics that everyone else does. I suppose it's a good gig if one can swing it. But it should not be allowed to continue unquestioned.

The media is always trying to piece together and contrive to sell more papers. As you say, Zorn, there never was anything of substance with "the deal". It never was much of a deal. But if the media could make even the slightest connection to "Barack is just as dirty as the rest" and "these threads to Tony implicate him" then BINGO!! The media has just the action it's ALWAYS LOOKING FOR.
Barack Obama is not just as dirty as the rest. The other candidates AND the incumbent now in office ALL stink to high heaven, compared to Barack Obama.
Barack Obama is this country's only hope of retrieving morality.
GO OBAMA IN 08!!!!!!!!!

Oh please, with Hillary's tainted past this seems like such a small issue in comparison. Im so tired of journalists focusing on issues that are biased, and quite frankly not news worthy. Right now the public wants to hear these candidates platforms. We dont want to hear half truths either. It's obvious when a journalist is basing their editorial piece based on one side of an issue instead of getting the facts 100% correct. Where is the reporting with regards to Kenya for example? This is big news, yet I had to hear about it from my son over seas? Journalism is becoming a joke anymore. The two articles I read were boring, and in-consesquential.

The issue of the divorce records illustrates how hypocritical the press is. I'll bet not one reporter actually cared about the details of the man's divorce or would change his own personal vote based on that. The press dug up the divorce records - particularly in the case of Jack Ryan - merely to embarrass and destroy the candidate and to help their favored candidate win.
I envision a couple reporters joking in the press room, "Boy, the stupid "family values" yahoos are going to be shocked about this!. Ha ha ha."

Zorn, suppose your imagination is running wild and there is nothing more for Obama to say but repeat himself. Why don't quit wasting ink unless you have something new to report?

ZORN REPLY -- I'm not saying "Lou!", Lou, I'm booing you. There are actual questions out there to which Obama has NOT given full responses. For him to repeat himself in answer to these specific queries would be bizarre. As is your implicit suggestion that we wait until Obama decides to talk to us before moving the story along.

There's more bad news about Rezko!
The LA Daily News is reporting that "Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, chairman of Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, has received $10,500 from indicted Chicago entrepreneur Antoin Rezko and his relatives or affiliates in previous council and mayoral campaigns"http://www.dailynews.com/breakingnews/ci_8130347

There doesn't seem to be an end to bad news about Rezko!

ZORN REPLY -- I hereby demand that HRC come clean on her relationship with Rezko!!!!

They're claiming Obama said no one knew about anything illegal with Rezko. That's true, but Obama wasn't talking about the time of the house and lot purchase (which was his point about it being "boneheaded" even though everything was legal).

The time Obama was referring to was what Hillary Clinton brought up in the debate as a retort to her being on the Wal-Mart board. She claimed Obama was representing Rezko, although the truth was that Obama was doing work for the non-profit that was working with Rezko who had his own lawyer. (imo Clinton made a "boneheaded" mistake there - or purposely tried to mislead viewers - but no one seems interested in her, at best, sloppy research.)

Anyway, Obama was correct. Back then people thought, and it may well have been true at the time, that Rezko was (legally and honestly) helping create badly needed low-income housing for the area. This wouldn't be the first time a developer got in over his head and then panicked trying to make up his losses. I'm not claiming that's what happened (I have no idea), but it's certainly a possibility. I really doubt Rezko was a crook from day one, if only because few people are.

My wife thinks the house purchase and the addition of the strip of land along side it were motivated by Michelle's concern for the safety of her family and he is trying to keep those concerns out of public view. She was also a part of the law firm long before him (she interviewed him for the job) and may have had some involvement. For him to divulge that would make it look as if he was letting her take the rap. So the only solution is for the PRESS TO DIG OUT THE TRUTH!

ZORN REPLY -- I hereby demand that HRC come clean on her relationship with Rezko!!!!

Yeah, make fun of it Eric, but this magnifies one basic fact about Rezko: He's positively toxic!
Everyone that comes in contact with him comes away from it covered in sewage!
And just what else do the Republicans have on him via the US Attorney's office that hasn't been made public?
How much more "contact" with Obama?

EZ, you're absolutely right about Obama's, Hull's, and Ryan's treatments of the questions surrounding them, but they never learn, do they?

If Richard Nixon had said, immediately after the Watergate suspicions surfaced, that yes, this happened, it wasn't authorized, and I'll get to the bottom of it and see that those responsible are punished suitably, he'd probably have served out his term.

If Bill Clinton hadn't waved his finger at us and asserted that he didn't have sex with that woman, hadn't tried to parse the meaning of "is," but had made a clean breast of it all (surely, given his history of not being able to keep his pants zipped, it wouldn't have been a big surprise to Hillary), the whole thing would have dried up and blown away.

If Jack Ryan had said, "Look, my marriage was failing, and I tried something unusual to try to spice it up. Obviously, it didn't work, and I'm sorry," he would have gained the sympathy and understanding of a large segment of the populace and we wouldn't have had Alan Keyes inflicted upon us. Maybe Ryan would have been the senator, and Obama would still be an obscure Illinois politician.

The lesson: You've got to throw the baying hounds of the media their piece of meat. Once satisfied, they'll be a lot less interested in chasing you, and will save their energy for another day and maybe somebody else.

=== What is the value of the remaining piece of land? If the dif is substantial then there is "donation". A+B should equal C. It might not.

===ZORN REPLY -- That's a fair question, I agree.

By assessment rules, the valuation is what is the use of the land. Since the 1/6 of the land isn't independently usable for development, it's value is less than 1/6 as long as the rest of the land is still able to be developed.

That's how we get at the low number the assessor provided and the amount Obama paid.

The problem with valuation on the potential for the land is that it depends on many factors concerning the decisions about how to develop it. Thus, potential value isn't anything you can really evaluate in the sense of assessments.

So, yes, it is possible that Rezko lost more value than he could have gotten by developing the full lot and anytime you sell a strip like that it's a favor in a sense.

Legally the standard is clearly was there a fair market value and that's certainly true in this case.

Ethically--well, that's why it was so stupid. Even if Obama was acting in good faith, it's pretty obvious Rezko wanted to do a favor.

ZORN REPLY -- I suppose that's true even if he felt he could make a profit/use the land as he thought best without the 1/6th reduction. It might be that the land-use restriction change was so slight without that parcel that it also made sense of Rezko to sell.
Of course even if it didn't and was a pure favor, golly, people do favors for politicians all the time.

Yes a President who is fully candid about a mistake is too much to ask. As a longtime journalist you must know the "gotcha"/hyena-pack nature of contemporary journalism, and the pack's habit of beating a wounded horse until it is dead---and then for a great deal longer..

Consider how successful President Bush has been stonewalling his drug and alcohol abuse as a "youthful indiscretion"--which went on well into his thirties! " I was an abuser, With Jesus' help I quit, that's it."

, Had he been "fully" candid, which to today's hyena-pack means "give us every single detail, especially the illegal or embarrassing ones", we would be talking as much about Bush's (ex) problem as Brittney Spears' to this day..

ZORN REPLY -- The implicit risk is that whatever you're hiding will surface, making it many times worse. Sure, everyone has his or her secrets. But when you appear to be hiding something, you increase the pressure and the suspicion that what you're hiding is politically unsustainable. In Bush's case, he may have been right, tactically, to draw a veil around that part of his past, thinking what the heck, there's no way to "front" this and it probably won't be corroborated anyway.
But there is this middle ground of information that, if you get outin front of it, is perfectly survivable. Obama's youthful use of cocaine, for instance. A few wild-eyed people have triend and will try to make an issue out of this "How can we consider for president a person who showed such poor judgment as a teenager????" But most people will shrug it off. If this were coming out now as a "revelation" and a contradiction to what Obama has said earlier, however, it might well sink him.
And when a candidate acts like he has something to hide, the press and public begins to assume that whatever he's hiding is, in fact, unsurvivable.

So what, exactly, is the real story here. It's not really about Obama or about Rezko, is it?

The Tribune endorses Obama, brings up the Rezko connection, states that there has been nothing to indicate that there were any laws violated, no proof of any wink-wink, nudge-nudge understanding between them, nothing to indicate that Rezko received any favors from Obama then complains that Obama just isn't being forthright enough in his answers to the Tribune.

Mr. Zorn spends much of his time defending Obama from commentators making what he acknowledges are baseless accusations about the Obama/Rezko connection, while the gist of his complaint is that Obama isn't being forthright enough in his answers to the media's questions about the Obama/Rezko connection, while again acknowledging that there is no proof that there was anything untoward going on.

From where I sit, the real story looks to me as if the Media, including the Tribune, has asked Obama questions about it, gotten answers from Obama about it, and just don't like the answers they were given so are going to whine and about the answers it got and then make scurrilous claims that Obama is not being forthcoming. Not only is there no fire here, there is no smoke here either - other than the wisps being created by the media rubbing two sticks together in hopes of igniting some kind of controversy where there isn't one. It looks like the media wants to get to a conclusion that the facts don't support and are either too proud to let it go, or are taking a page from dishonest pollsters and scientists who come up with their answer, then create false data to support their conclusions.

Tell us, what answer are you looking for - and be specific - then maybe we can convince Obama to give you the answer you want so we can move on from this exercise in media harrumphing. Or if that won't work, how about acknowledging that all the investigations the media has done has turned up nothing (which is what the media is reporting), then moving on to real stories.

ZORN REPLY-- We've been really clear about wanting to fill in the time-line and explore the real estate deal and other dealings between Rezko and Obama. The story keeps coming up, not just here but in the national media, because those questions haven't been answered very well.

1) In yesterday's Trib you write about Barak Obama giving the Rezko story its ongoing life. Perhaps there is another explanation for Sen. Obama's reticence.

Just maybe Tony Rezko helped him buy his dreamhouse and he has no good explanation. Unless this famed developer is a bad negotiator and Obama is a great one, why did Obama get such a good deal on his house.

2) Have you noticed various media articals refer to Obama vs. Hillary? This strikes me as sexist.

3) Check this one out. It has become vogue for prosecutors who lose cases to smugly say, "Not guilty is not the same as innocent" thus further impugning the defendant.

I must have grown up in a different USA. The one I grew up in had as a basic tenet: We are innocent until proven guilty. If someone is not proven guilty, they are innocent. End of story. I don't understand why someone like yourself who has stood up for the accused doesn't tell our prosecutors to just shut up.

Eric - Was going to say thanks for replying to my earlier comment regarding submitting questions to the Senator, but it look like you nuked it after leaving it up for a bit.

The more I think about it, the more I kind of understand the Catch-22 of Obama's situation. Even if he provides an exhaustive and squeaky-clean narrative for all events and wholy satisfies your remaining questions, it still hurts him in the short-term for this primary season.

No matter what he says, it will dominate the news cycle for at least a full day as pundits and competitors try to analyze each answer he gives.

It will likely cost him precious votes and delegates in one of the upcoming state races; his responses will be subject to the spin and sound-byte necessity of the television media - rather than the complete narrative of the printed word.

It's easy to understand both your argument and his not wanting to dwell on the subject - especially if he is as faultless as the existing reporting on of the facts leads me to believe.

That said, I understand your perspective better. I hope the time does come when he can effectively answer any remaining questions.

ZORN REPLY -- I don't remember deleting a post like this. IF I did, I apologize. Things happen here when I click the wrong button every so often.
Sure, this story might dominate the news cycle for a day or two now and it might be a setback, but that's Blair Hull/Jack Ryan/Richard Nixon thinking -- maybe the story will go away if I keep ducking it.
I'm sure the gamble has worked for certain pols. The risk is that the story will explode at a REALLY inopportune time. Late October of this year, say, if Obama is nominated.

You wrote:
"...that's Blair Hull/Jack Ryan/Richard Nixon thinking -- maybe the story will go away if I keep ducking it.
I'm sure the gamble has worked for certain pols. The risk is that the story will explode at a REALLY inopportune time. Late October of this year, say, if Obama is nominated."

The only way it blows up is if there indeed is something to hide. That's the Catch-22: that it will inevitably be elevated to scandal status in the media for a time - even if it isn't. Hull, Ryan, and Nixon all had real wrongs they didn't want brought to light. No matter how this turns out, it's not going to be on the same level as domestic violence, bondage clubs, or political espionage. Those comparisions, IMHO, are a bit over the top.

That said, I've sent my emai,l as an Obama supporter, to the campaign asking that they put this issue to bed with you and the Chi-town press. I just can see why it may, even if there is nothing to hide, it hurts them more than it helps them at this time.

ZORN REPLY -- Well, that's just it. The failure to answer al lthe questions and put the matter to bed becomes its own "scandal" if you're not careful. And it drags on....

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.